2 ms·

> A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority Note emphasis. Going in my house without my permission (wit

> A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority Note emphasis. Going in my house without my permission (without authority) to do something illegal is criminal trespass, based on what you quoted. If you have permission to be in my house and do something illegal while in my house then that is not criminal trespass, based on what you quoted. Whatever illegal thing you did is still illegal, but you weren't trespassing. Exactly the same as what GP and the parent of that said about CFAA. The CFAA, as the Supreme Court clarified with this ruling, makes it illegal to break into a computer system. But if you have permission to be in a computer system and do something illegal with that access, whatever you did is still illegal, but you didn't break into the computer system so you didn't violate the CFAA. Making it an exact digital equivalent of your trespassing law.

R0b0t1 5y ago
It can reasonably argued (and has been argued iirc) that you are not authorized to enter the room if not on official business.
treis 5y ago
>If you have permission to be in my house and do something illegal Sure, but having permission to come in for a certain reason doesn't also grant you permission to come back lather for another reason. To use the analogy, the defendant had permission to enter the "house" for certain purposes. They subsequently entered it for an explicitly unauthorized purpose. That latter entry is trespassing.
- eganist 5y ago
  I would be keen on seeing caselaw on this. Got any references I can read?
wahern 5y ago
If you read the opinions, the dissent reads the CFAA as if it were just importing common law property-based rules to the electronic realm. As it applies to property, authorization is absolutely contextual. If I give a key to a housecleaner and they use it one afternoon intending to steal something, that's trespass. If they just happen to steal something on the spur of the moment, that's not trespass. However, the CFAA has additional language ("exceeds authorized access") that would capture such behavior. As the dissent notes, you can absolutely be charged with criminal trespass if you, for example, enter a National Park to remove a grain of sand in violation of park rules; it's the intent to do something in violation of the terms of access that makes it trespass. The majority opinion says that applying common law property-based meanings is not the right approach. Rather, the CFAA makes far more sense if you understand authorization and similar terms in the sense they're more often used in computer science, which turn on the design of the authentication and authorization system itself, and are agnostic to external policy, agent intent, etc.

R0b0t1 5y ago

It can reasonably argued (and has been argued iirc) that you are not authorized to enter the room if not on official business.

treis 5y ago

>If you have permission to be in my house and do something illegal Sure, but having permission to come in for a certain reason doesn't also grant you permission to come back lather for another reason. To use the analogy, the defendant had permission to enter the "house" for certain purposes. They subsequently entered it for an explicitly unauthorized purpose. That latter entry is trespassing.

eganist 5y ago
I would be keen on seeing caselaw on this. Got any references I can read?

wahern 5y ago

If you read the opinions, the dissent reads the CFAA as if it were just importing common law property-based rules to the electronic realm. As it applies to property, authorization is absolutely contextual. If I give a key to a housecleaner and they use it one afternoon intending to steal something, that's trespass. If they just happen to steal something on the spur of the moment, that's not trespass. However, the CFAA has additional language ("exceeds authorized access") that would capture such behavior. As the dissent notes, you can absolutely be charged with criminal trespass if you, for example, enter a National Park to remove a grain of sand in violation of park rules; it's the intent to do something in violation of the terms of access that makes it trespass. The majority opinion says that applying common law property-based meanings is not the right approach. Rather, the CFAA makes far more sense if you understand authorization and similar terms in the sense they're more often used in computer science, which turn on the design of the authentication and authorization system itself, and are agnostic to external policy, agent intent, etc.